Microbe and chemical detection is well known to be difficult within a water supply and even more difficult to control. Residents in even the most technologically advanced nation know that an outbreak of microbes or a period of drought can force residents to boil water for drinking.

Until now, the world has been lucky in that there have been no recorded serious attempts at terrorism through water supply. However, many countries are known to be harbouring synthetic chemicals and radioactive compounds produced specifically for water terrorism.

In response to the threats in the United States, the EPA has established a water protection task force, but its planned responses to an attack on the water supply are hardly reassuring. In the event of a water emergency, the task force promises to work closely with law enforcement officers and will dispatch a team of experts to the site of the potential contaminants to help advise.

The truth of the matter is that the entire subject of waterborne viruses is not truly understood so it is difficult to estimate how vulnerable or safe any water supply is to these threats. In New Zealand, concern about a potential terrorist attack was partially alleviated by a government report that said New Zealand's relative isolation meant that the likelihood of a terrorist attack is minimal, whew!

The primary threats to drinking water supplies are contamination by chemical, biological or radiological agents; damage, destruction, or sabotage of physical infrastructure; and disruption to computer systems. There are five agents that the American Medical Association considers likely for biological attacks. They are anthrax, botulinum toxin, plague, smallpox, and tularaemia. Of these five, only anthrax and tularaemia can be transmitted by water. Because botulism is so potent, there is a concern that it could contaminate a municipal water supply, but has only known to have survived at all in untreated water or beverages.

Anthrax is one of the scariest of the potential contaminants because so little is known about it. Recent Anthrax deaths have shown us that things like how it travels, can be transmitted and at what strengths it can be tolerated are not well understood by scientists.

Even though the likelihood of attacks on a water supply is relatively low, the level of preparedness across the globe is unsettling. It has been said in some arenas that private water control leads to more of a threat of terrorism because it is more difficult for the government to control and ensure adequate protection.

However the argument can also be made that private or decentralized water supplies, as in the US are more often smaller concerns and therefore the ability to contaminate large numbers of the population is minimized. An argument can also be made that the need for diligence in a private concern is much greater than that of a public one as the potential for competition exists.

No matter whether one favors private or public water supply control, it is almost uncontestable that most water concerns have addressed the threat of terrorism most heavily through pre-attack prevention as opposed to post-attack attention.

In all sectors, private and public, domestic and industrial, the world is still scratching it's head over how to protect the water supply. A "this can't happen here" attitude has proven not to serve the developed world well and less developed nations are even more vulnerable as they have no adequate methods of cleansing water. Because the task is so daunting and government officials and scientists are not sure where to start, relatively little has been done to move toward safeguarding the water supply. It is time to dedicate real efforts to finding real answers.